He was

record a single case where the Crown had, | He claimed that the troops were attacked since the Union, exercised its influence at in the first instance by the populace at elections by means of the military. It had Waterford. He would mention to the House been argued that the present measure would a case which had occurred during an elecpromote freedom of election; but in answer tion at which he was a candidate. Forty to that it was sufficient to remark that the voters belonging to a friend of hismilitary were employed in Ireland not to [Laughter.] Why, hon. Gentlemen coerce the voters, but to protect them from seemed disposed to treat this high moral the violence of excited mobs. Speaking question very lightly. Those forty voters in reference to his personal knowledge of belonged to a friend of his own. the West Riding of the county of Cork, not going to enter into a disquisition as to and of some other districts, he could affirm his friend's title to those voters. His that the tenants were perfectly aware that friend had had the bad taste to order them their interests were identical with the in- to vote against him; but, in order to avoid terests of their landlords, and that the doing so, the voters requested that a great majority of them would vote with "mob might be sent out to stop them on their landlords if they were not coerced in their way to the poll. They further rethe opposite direction by the spiritual power quested that they might be stopped near a of the priesthood. wood, in order that they might get into it and avoid being caught again. He had reason to believe that the desired movement had been duly executed. Some of the voters polled for him, as his friend had not been able to recover the whole of his property after they got into the wood. It was to maintain the landlord's right in such property the military were employed at elections in Ireland. He believed the military would be delighted to be relieved from the duty of attending at elections.

SIR JOHN GRAY said, it was unfortunately true that instances had been known in Ireland of bands of tenants being brought up and forced to poll under the terror of the bayonets of the military. On every occasion when party feeling was strongly excited they had had these military riots. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have utterly forgotten the case of Six Mile Bridge in 1862, when several persons were bayoneted. The military were used as the electioneering agents of the landlord; and it was to put a stop to such abuses that they wished an effective measure to be passed. If they really wished for freedom of election, why not take the reasonable and practical mode of ensuring the freedom of the voters? Nothing could be more inconsistent than to give perfect freedom to the electors in England, and, at the same time, to place the whole armed force of the Crown at the disposal of the landlords, for the purpose of coercing their tenantry to vote against their consciences, and driving them up to the polling-booths like prisoners. That was a state of things demanding a remedy. He did not complain that the influence of the Crown was exercised wrongfully; but he maintained that the power of the military was. He held that it was the duty of Parliament to equalize the laws of England and Ireland. LORD CREMORNE remarked that in the county which he had the honour to represent a case occurred where a man killed in consequence, not of the presence of the soldiers, but of their absence. He was afraid that that circumstance would prevent him from voting in support of the present Bill.

was

MR. ESMONDE supported the Bill.
VOL. CXCIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

MR. SERJEANT BARRY, in replying, reminded the House that, in the matter of the Westminster election, the House had passed a Resolution condemnatory of the employment of military at elections. It had been stated that the 12th Lancers, who had acted on the occasion of the Dungarvan riots, were hooted while forming part of the escort on the entry of the Prince and Princess of Wales into Dublin. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had accused him of bad taste, because he had mentioned that circumstance in a former debate. The noble Lord's explanation of the circumstance was as extraordinary as that which he gave of the sense in which he had used the words "levelling up." [The Earl of MAYO: I never used the words.] Well, it was as extraordinary as the noble Lord's explanation of the sense in which he had used the words "elevation, and not confiscation." Question put.

96: Majority 41.
The House divided:-Ayes 55; Noes

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for three months.

Р

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (METRO-
POLIS) BILL-[BILL 105.]

(Mr. Mill, Mr. Thomas Hughes, Mr. Tomline,

Mr. Buxton, Mr. Layard.)

SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [17th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word " and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day three months."(Mr. Bentinck.)

now,

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

impossible for the Government to have given their assent to its proceeding further; because whatever may have been the intention of the promoters, there appeared on the face of the Bill an attempt to legalize what the law has always set its face against -namely, the dealing in marine policies, as if they were life policies, passing current like bills of exchange. Now, an endea vour has lately been made in this House to alter the law in the same sense with respect to fire policies-this was unsuccessful, and such a change would be fraught with peril. What is fire or marine insurance ? It is a contract of indemnity from loss or damage arising from an uncertain eventthe object is not to make a positive gain, but to avert possible loss. There cannot be indemnity without loss, or loss without interest. A policy, therefore, without interest is not insurance but a mere wager, and it would, in fact, hold out temptation to the assignee to set fire to the house, or scuttle the ship, which is the subject of the insurance. The hon. Member has, however, accepted Amendments, and is ready to adopt others which will very much alter his Bill, and will, I hope, secure two necessary things-first, the non-severance MR. J. STUART MILL then briefly of the policy from interest in the property replied to some of the arguments advanced insured; and secondly, that which is absoin the course of the debate a few days lutely essential when you assign an obligasince upon this Bill, expressing his regret tion or contract, subject to rights of set that the measure, instead of being met off and mutual credit-namely, protection with a direct negative by a private Mem-to the underwriter from all liability beyond ber, had not been left for the consideration that to which he would have been subjected of the Government.

Debate resumed.

MR. J. STUART MILL appealed to the Secretary of State for India, by whom the adjournment of the debate had been moved on the former occasion, to proceed with his argument.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that at that late hour he did not feel justified in launching the House upon a fresh discusssion.

Question put, and negatived.

Words added.

if the policy had not been assigned. The hon. Member has stated that there is a strong desire among the commercial classes connected with shipping for this measure.

Main Question, as amended, put, and Under these circumstances, though objec agreed to.

tion may be taken to it as fragmentary legislation, I have no objection to the Motion that you, Sir, leave the Chair, in order that the Bill may be committed pro formå, for the purpose of its being re-printed with Amendments.

Bill considered in Committee.

Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 203]; re-committed for Thursday.

BRISTOL WRIT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for Parliament for the City of Bristol, in the room of the electing of a Citizen to serve in this present John William Miles, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."—(Mr. Noel.)

“The writ for the City of Bristol be not issued till seven days after the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Bristol Election Petition has been printed."

MR. BASS moved, as an Amendment, fect that bribery had not extensively prethatvailed at the recent election, considering the number of the electors. Now, that was a statement which involved some ambiguity, and the House could not, in his opinion, properly deal with the matter until they had before them the evidence which had been taken. ["Divide ! "] He had no doubt that Gentlemen opposite, in the state of the House, wished to divide; but he objected to this matter being made the subject of a "catch" majority, as was the case the other night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed in a very peculiar and difficult position. A stigma would attach to the Government if they lent themselves to the proposition just made by one with less responsibility than themselves, and he thought that the course in which the Government was now engaged was derogatory to their honour.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) had given notice that he intended to move for the Writ; but the matter had been allowed to drop, and the prevailing opinion among hon. Members was that the Motion would not be made without a renewal of the Notice. In the case of Derby, in 1858, the Committee reported that there had been nine acts of bribery committed, and that in only one instance had the bribe reached £5. But under those circumstances the House had not permitted a Writ to be issued for that borough for a period of six months. He was informed, he might add, that great excitement prevailed in Bristol, and that a regular saturnalia was in progress there, owing to the impression that the House would find it impracticable in the present state of affairs to deal with any acts of bribery or to visit them with punishment. That being so, he hoped the House would see the propriety of assenting to his Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Writ for the City of Bristol be not issued till seven days after the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Bristol Election Petition has been printed."—(Mr. Bass.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. LABOUCHERE contended that the question was one of too much importance to be discussed at so late an hour as one o'clock, and moved the adjournment of the debate.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. AYRTON said, he thought the occupants of the Treasury Bench ought to give the House some reason for the mode of proceeding adopted by them in the present instance. It could not be necessary at that hour of the morning to surprise the House with such a Motion, unless an election were necessary within two or three days. The Report of the Chairman of the Bristol Election Committee was to the ef

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had spoken with his usual fluency, had not adduced a single argument to induce the House to postpone the issue of the Writ. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last election for Bristol; but had not adduced one fact in support of his assumption.

MR. AYRTON moved that the Report of the Bristol Election Committee be read.

Report of Committee [25th June] read.

MR. LOCKE observed, that the commission of every improper act which could occur at an election-bribery, corruption, treating, and personation was mentioned in the Report; and he therefore thought that the House should not be in a desperate hurry to issue the Writ. They should have the opportunity of considering how the Bristol election had been conducted. He was at a loss to know why the Ministerial Benches should now be so well filled, and why there was now such a great desire for the issue of the Writ. He would sit to any hour, and move those Motions which were necessary to save the honour of the House on this occasion, when such a surprise was attempted by the other side.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he thought the sudden proceeding on the other side required explanation. The Report of the Committee showed that corrupt practices did not extensively prevail in Bristol, and when a Report of that sort was presented it was the practice to issue

for the service of Her Majesty's Fleet; but they desired to improve the pay and position of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian chaplains at Sheerness, Chatham, and Portsmouth, and also to entitle them to the receipt of pensions. The same financial reason to which he had already alluded had prevented this being done at present.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC

SYSTEM) BILL-[BILL 44.]
(Mr. Ewart, Mr. Bazley, Mr. Baines, Mr. John
Benjamin Smith, Mr. Graves.)
COMMITTEE. BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order for Committee read.

MR. J. B. SMITH said, that before moving that the Order be discharged, he wished to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the present anomalous state of the law. The late Government opposed a Bill brought in by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) for the adoption of the system of metric weights and measures; but being defeated by a large majority, they agreed to bring in a Bill permitting the use of metric weights and measures. Persons, however, who were found using

Parliament of Prussia, on its part, had moved the Government to take into its consideration the best means of carrying into effect an international system of monies as well as weights and measures. He moved that the Order of the Day be now discharged.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE denied that the division on the second reading was a proof of the general feeling on the subject. It was one of those political contrivances by which both parties-the Government and the Opposition-had avoided an issue which neither wished to encounter. The second reading was affirmed on the understanding that the measure was not to proceed further. Practical men in the country were largely protesting against the inconvenience which the adoption of the system would entail.

MR. SPEAKER reminded the hon.
Member that that was not the time to
discuss the merits of the measure.
Order discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVER-
SITIES BILL-[BILL 30.]

them were prosecuted for having these (Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Grant Duff.)

SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [13th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time ;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."-(Mr. Walpole.)

word 'now' stand part of the Question." Question again proposed, "That the

Debate resumed.

measures in their possession. The case was laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, who held that it was lawful, according to this Act, to use metric weights and measures, but that if a person were found in possession of them he would be liable to be prosecuted. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) thereupon brought in a Bill enacting that the metric system of metric weights and measures should be adopted in this country. A large majority had affirmed the second reading of his hon. Friend's Bill, and he must do the present Government the justice to say MR. POWELL said, he would point that they had heartily supported the mea-out, as one of the objections to this Bill, sure. It was, however, necessary that proper metric standards should be provided to verify these weights and measures, and the Government had appointed a Royal Commission to consider the question. Next year he hoped the Government would bring in a Bill and carry this great question to a successful issue. Countries containing a population of no less than 270,000,000 had adopted the metric system of weights and measures, and only a few days ago the King of Prussia congratulated his Parliament upon the adoption of this system throughout the whole of Germany. The

that it had not received the favour of the Universities themselves, for as regarded Cambridge alone, petitions signed by no fewer than 2,232 Members of the Senate had been presented against it. It was a common thing to compare the German and other Continental Universities with the English; but, in truth, they were wholly dissimilar. The former were founded by the State, directed by the State, and, in fact, were the creatures of the State; whereas the latter consisted in a great degree of Colleges which were the result of private benefactions. But although the